This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for an order directing the O.Ps. to return the mobile-in-question as he purchased from the shopkeeper, O.P.No.1 on 16.02.2015 or return the total purchasing value of Rs.9,250/- of the mobile including also to return the repairing value of Rs.4,080/- of the mobile-in-question, to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and other reliefs to the complainant.
The complaint case in short is that the complainant purchased one GIONEE M2 mobile on 16.02.2015 from the Saraswati.com at Kaliyaganj and on & from 01.06.2015 said mobile did not work properly. So, the complainant contacted with the shopkeeper i.e. O.P. No.1, from where he purchased the same and as per the instruction of the shopkeeper he contacted with the O.P. No.2, Gionee Authorized Service Centre on 01.06.2015 for relief and as per advice of the O.P. No.2 the complainant deposited Rs.4,080/- as repairing charge to the O.P. No.2. On 19.06.2015 after repairing the same when he went to collect the same from the service centre then he noticed that the collecting repaired mobile was not his mobile but also some other mobile and all the part and parcels of that repairing mobile were different from his own mobile as purchased from the O.P.No.1. So, he requested the service centre, O.P. No. 2 to return back his original mobile but they denied for return the same. So, finding no other alternative to get relief the complainant has filed this case before this Forum.
On the other hand, in spite of service of notice upon the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 they did not appear in this case, accordingly the case was heard exparte against them.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, documentary evidence on record, hearing, argument advanced by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant, the Ld. Forum has come to the findings as follows: -
To establish the complaint case the complainant has relied upon an affidavit-in-chief sworn by him upon some documents, which are (i) original mobile bill, (ii) original copy of repairing bill of authorized service centre, (iii) copy of confirmation message report and upon his own statement recorded as P.W.1.
It is needless to say the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 against whom the relief claimed by the complainant did not appear before this Forum though the notice of this case had duly been served upon the O.Ps. it is expected as a responsible seller of the mobile and service centre they would appear before this Forum after receiving the notices and they would act as per their client’s grievances and would submit if any their own versions regarding the claim of the complainants.
The evidence adduced by the complainant is supporting the case; we find nothing to disbelieve the evidence adduced, as the same have not been challenged. It is essential to mention that the documentary evidence and the oral evidence as mentioned corroborated by each other. Even, none appeared in this case in spite of taking notices to challenge the case from the side of the O.Ps. So, in our opinion the complainant has been able to make out a prima facie case to get an order in his favour as per his prayer. Accordingly this case succeeds.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence, it is
ORDERED,
That the complaint case No. CC - 43/2015 be and the same is allowed exparte against the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 without cost.
That the O.P. No.2 is directed to return the original mobile which the complainant purchased on 16.02.2015 from the O.P. No.1 after repairing or refund the total purchasing value of Rs.9,250/-of the mobile-in-question, along with Rs.4,080/- as repairing cost and it is further directed to the O.P. No.2 to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-to the complainant within one month from this day, failing which the awarded amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till full realization; failing which the complainant will be at liberty to realize his claim in accordance with law.
Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
